Few concepts have been as central — or as misleading — as the idea of the particle in quantum theory. From electrons to photons to quarks, physics has often described the world as if it were made of discrete, bounded entities moving through space.
But quantum theory has consistently resisted this view. Particles behave like waves. They lack definite location or identity. They interfere with themselves. They seem to “exist” only when measured. And yet, the metaphor of the particle persists.
Why do we keep talking about particles, when the theory refuses to give us any?
Because we are still thinking in terms of substance ontology — the belief that the world is fundamentally made of “things.”
A relational ontology rejects this framing entirely. It sees the so-called particle not as an object, but as a punctualisation of potential — a local coherence within a constrained relational field.
1. The Myth of Thingness
-
In classical mechanics, a particle is a point mass with defined properties: position, momentum, identity,
-
But in quantum theory, particles cannot be assigned precise positions or paths,
-
They do not persist through time in any classical sense,
-
Relational view:
There are no particles. What we call particles are construals — temporary configurations made legible by systemic constraints.
The particle is not something we discover. It is something we impose — a way of parsing transformation as if it involved things.
2. The Problem of Identity
-
Quantum particles are indistinguishable. Exchange of identical particles does not yield a new state,
-
This undermines classical notions of individuation and persistence,
-
From a relational standpoint:
What we take as individuality is just localised regularity — an apparent ‘thing’ produced by coherent construal, not inherent identity.
The field does not contain individuals. It contains patterns of coherence.
3. Collapse and Appearance
-
In the Copenhagen interpretation, the wavefunction collapses upon measurement, producing a particle-like outcome,
-
This suggests that the particle is latent, waiting to appear,
-
But relationally:
There is no hidden particle. There is only the field’s reorganisation under constraint — a shift in the topology of potential.
Measurement does not reveal a thing. It restructures the system so that certain transitions become actual.
4. Wave–Particle Duality as Misdescription
-
Duality is often invoked to resolve paradox: particles behave like waves, waves behave like particles,
-
But this rests on the assumption that both categories are meaningful,
-
Instead:
Wave–particle duality is a symptom of an inadequate ontology — a linguistic patch over a category error.
There are neither waves nor particles, but only dynamic fields undergoing constraint-based actualisation.
5. Reframing Detection
-
Particle detectors do not detect particles. They register transitions — local interactions that are parsed as events,
-
A “click” in a detector is not proof of a particle's existence,
-
It is:
The punctualisation of potential under tightly constrained conditions — a systemic reconfiguration that registers as a discrete output.
The particle is the name we give to a threshold event — not a substance crossing space.
Relational Definition
We might say:
A ‘particle’ is a metaphor for local coherence within a relational field — a construal of constrained transformation as if it were the motion of a thing.
It has no independent existence, no trajectory, no identity — only conditional actualisation.
Closing
The persistence of the particle metaphor reflects more about our epistemic habits than about the world itself. It allows us to speak and calculate, but at the cost of coherence.
In a relational ontology, particles are neither real nor unreal — they are the artefacts of how potential is constrained, construed, and punctuated under systemic conditions.
In the next post, we will revisit quantum fields — not as invisible stuff filling space, but as structured systems of potential within which coherence becomes legible.
No comments:
Post a Comment